End DADT

[Reidlr]

Gay men and women already serve with no problems seen.

Exactly!! DADT has given them that!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Gay men and women already serve with no problems seen.

Exactly!! DADT has given them that!

Bullshit. DADT has only given them extra time for getting processed out of the service.

I joined the Navy in 1982. When I first came in, there was a major loss of people who claimed to be gay but in reality, they weren't. Quite a few would enlist for the Advanced Electronics Fields, get several years worth of quality training, report onboard their first command and tell them they were gay.

Processing time was around 48 hours to get them out.

That policy stayed in place until DADT was passed. It was originally a stopgap measure to keep people in, because now there were boards to be assembled, reviews to be done, and oh yeah.....interviews with shrinks and your chain of command.

DADT needs to be repealed. We are losing too many QUALIFIED people who actually want to serve.

As far as gays messing up the billeting? Nope. It's the assholes who are scared of gays that cause all the problems. Since 1983, I've known gay people at almost every command I've been at. Most times, they are better military people than the straights. Why? Gays pay closer attention to detail than straights do. It's in their lifestyle and culture, and one of the things that the military respects quite a bit, is attention to detail.

Lt. Daniel Choi was an Army man whose entire squad knew he was gay. They didn't have a problem with it. Lt Choi was also a fluent Arabic speaker serving in Iraq. Interestingly enough, out of the entire military, we only have around 500 Arabic speakers. We're in a war with Arabic speaking people. How can that be considered beneficial to discharge such a valuable asset, just because he's gay?

I retired in 2002. During the 20 years I was in the Navy, I could never see a valid reason for discharging gays.

We'd be better off getting rid of all the homophobes.

 

[Reidlr]

Gay men and women already serve with no problems seen.

Exactly!! DADT has given them that!

Bullshit. DADT has only given them extra time for getting processed out of the service.

I joined the Navy in 1982. When I first came in, there was a major loss of people who claimed to be gay but in reality, they weren't. Quite a few would enlist for the Advanced Electronics Fields, get several years worth of quality training, report onboard their first command and tell them they were gay.

Processing time was around 48 hours to get them out.

That policy stayed in place until DADT was passed. It was originally a stopgap measure to keep people in, because now there were boards to be assembled, reviews to be done, and oh yeah.....interviews with shrinks and your chain of command.

DADT needs to be repealed. We are losing too many QUALIFIED people who actually want to serve.

As far as gays messing up the billeting? Nope. It's the assholes who are scared of gays that cause all the problems. Since 1983, I've known gay people at almost every command I've been at. Most times, they are better military people than the straights. Why? Gays pay closer attention to detail than straights do. It's in their lifestyle and culture, and one of the things that the military respects quite a bit, is attention to detail.

Lt. Daniel Choi was an Army man whose entire squad knew he was gay. They didn't have a problem with it. Lt Choi was also a fluent Arabic speaker serving in Iraq. Interestingly enough, out of the entire military, we only have around 500 Arabic speakers. We're in a war with Arabic speaking people. How can that be considered beneficial to discharge such a valuable asset, just because he's gay?

I retired in 2002. During the 20 years I was in the Navy, I could never see a valid reason for discharging gays.

We'd be better off getting rid of all the homophobes.

Yes, you are right. In the past some heterosexual military members have stated that they were gay, just to get out. Just as junior officers state that they are conscientious objectors after receiveing their college education. There is abuse in every system. I have not known gay Marines at every base, except one. I'm sure that there are gay men at every base, but they keep their mouth shut, and aren't flambouant, so I am non-the-wiser to their sexual orientation.

As a Navy man, you know damn well that there is a huge difference between the Navy and the Marine Corps. A loud and proud gay man will not do well in the Marine Corps and probably not the Army. The Air Force and Navy will have less difficulty, but there will be problems!

Are you suggesting that the UCMJ be rewritten to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle? Do you honostly believe that the JCS will pass such a rewrite? Your crazy if you think so! Yes, Admiral Mullen is onboard with it, but come on, the Army and Marine Corps will never give in to such changes. So what the homosexuals will be stuck with is an open policy that punishes homosexual acts.

Call it homophobic, call it what you like. Repeal of DADT will not work and will interfere with current wartime operations abroad in the two branches that are take the brunt of the punishment! The Army and Marine Corps do NOT need this distraction right now!

On a side note, I find it hilarious that we are talking about gay men and the Navy! Isn't that one of the requirements for enlistment in the Navy?!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey there you jarhead fuckwit.........you DO realize that the Marines are OWNED by the Navy, right?

Every last one of your LES's state "Department of the Navy". Yes jarhead, I do know that there is a difference.

BTW..........I've also known Marines who were as queer as a 3 dollar bill. They were also outstanding Marines, much better than the crusty old fucks such as yourself.

DADT needs to be repealed. By the way Marine, how long did you serve? Did you complete a full enlistment?

And by the way.......the UCMJ article against sodomy would also stop you from getting a blowjob from whoever is stupid enough to hook up with you.

Blowjobs are unnatural sexual acts, and sodomy is defined as such. Try again 'tard.

 

[Reidlr]

Hey there you jarhead fuckwit.........you DO realize that the Marines are OWNED by the Navy, right?

Every last one of your LES's state "Department of the Navy". Yes jarhead, I do know that there is a difference.

BTW..........I've also known Marines who were as queer as a 3 dollar bill. They were also outstanding Marines, much better than the crusty old fucks such as yourself.

DADT needs to be repealed. By the way Marine, how long did you serve? Did you complete a full enlistment?

And by the way.......the UCMJ article against sodomy would also stop you from getting a blowjob from whoever is stupid enough to hook up with you.

Blowjobs are unnatural sexual acts, and sodomy is defined as such. Try again 'tard.

Really! You are resulting to, "The Marine Corps is owned by the Navy". Two points I'd like to make about your pointless post:

1) Pretending that you know me, and having to respond to someone's post with personal attacks only makes you look like an uneducated idiot.

2) I am fully aware of article 125 of the UCMJ and also of the fact that oral sex is considered illegal. To have homosexuals serve openly and to allow them to act like homosexuals, the SECDEF and JCS would have to eliminate this article. That will not happen.

The other problem that the military will have is recognizing homosexual unions. If you allow them to serve openly they will want this benefit.

The bottom line is that military service in the US is voluntary! If you do not agree with the rules and regulations of the military, then do not VOLUNTEER to join. If military service in the US was mandatory, then maybe I could see the argument, but still not agree with it. If you think that the current administration is doing this to look out for the LGBT community and that they are not doing this clearly as part of the Democratic political agenda then you are ignorant.

To address your question of how long did I serve. Don't really see how this information pertains to the thread, but I served 8 years. After 8 years, I was offered employment that would afford the best opportunities for my children and I chose to get out!

 

[Madeline]

I think we can survive the "horrors" that may flow from recognizing the homosexual service man or woman's family. That man or woman's family is a MILITARY family and IMO, we don't do nearly enough for ANY of them.

You have yet to make ONE reasoned objection to elimination of DADT, Reidlr. Anti-fraternization rules seem sufficient to deal with most of your BS concerns.

If DADT is repealed, I certainly do expect the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) to be rewritten as needed to follow the law of the land and the Constitution. What sort of objection is it, that a bit of code drafting needs to be done? The JAG Corps has plenty of fine lawyers in it....I cannot see where this presents any burden at all.

Haven't they already amended the UCMJ once in this regard, to allow for DADT?

Just embrace your homophobia, Reindlr. No need to dress it up and pretend that it is normal or rational. You have a HUGE phobia about GLBT folks....and? I'm afraid of big dogs. Should I pressure the Armed Services to do away with all service dogs because of that?

Doing so would make as much damned sense as your POV does.

 

[Nosmo King]

I have never served in the military. I am not altogether unfamiliar with the military 'culture' and protocol. I spent sixteen years working at a Consulting Engineering firm with contracts with both the Army and Navy. My career was working side by side with military professionals such as engineers, technicians, security forces, line active officers and enlisted personnel. I appreciate your service.

I know that the active service is basically, a young persons game. And we know that attitudes and prejudices change with every generation. Don't believe me? Check the want ads section in any big city newspaper between 1800 and 1959. You'll find ads openly excluding nationalities, creeds, races and genders. All immutable circumstances. And homosexuality is illegal in the service only here in America. Young people appreciate this. Americans appreciate this.

The military culture has always adapted to the American mores (however you choose to define it). There are willing, patriotic men and women who are ready to serve and act as responsibly as their heterosexual comrades in arms. Talented men and women who are, incidentally, serving their country as we speak. I honor their service as well.

There certainly is a pool of talent wasting due to an outdated culture and a fear-filled command structure.

My personal physician is gay. The man saved my life. Am I to shun and fear him because of his sexuality? He was born to be who he is. So, it breaks down to the individual, not a group. Just as you discipline rogue heterosexuals (It's TAIL HOOK on the phone for you! Will you take the call?), discipline run away gay service personnel.

 

[Reidlr]

I think we can survive the "horrors" that may flow from recognizing the homosexual service man or woman's family. That man or woman's family is a MILITARY family and IMO, we don't do nearly enough for ANY of them.

You have yet to make ONE reasoned objection to elimination of DADT, Reidlr. Anti-fraternization rules seem sufficient to deal with most of your BS concerns.

If DADT is repealed, I certainly do expect the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) to be rewritten as needed to follow the law of the land and the Constitution. What sort of objection is it, that a bit of code drafting needs to be done? The JAG Corps has plenty of fine lawyers in it....I cannot see where this presents any burden at all.

Haven't they already amended the UCMJ once in this regard, to allow for DADT?

Just embrace your homophobia, Reindlr. No need to dress it up and pretend that it is normal or rational. You have a HUGE phobia about GLBT folks....and? I'm afraid of big dogs. Should I pressure the Armed Services to do away with all service dogs because of that?

Doing so would make as much damned sense as your POV does.

You really are something else! Your fellow liberals would be so proud of you! I have provided multiple issues that will arise from the repeal of DADT. You have not given one substantial rebutal to anything I have said. The only thing you have managed to do is attempt to classify me as a homophob and have had to result to using slander, but then again that is the standard liberal debate. "What, you don't agree with me? You must be a racist or a homophob or just a bigot." Pathetic! No where in my posts have I portraid myself as a person who has homophobia. In fact, I have not stated that I would be affected by the repeal of DADT, at all. This is just your feeble, uneducated attempt to discredit my opinion on the subject of DADT, and really is quit pathetic.

Anti-fraternization! You are an idiot!
According to the Navy IG: Investigation

Generally, fraternization is an unduly familiar personal relationship between an officer member and an enlisted member that does not respect the difference in rank or grade. Relationships between officer members and between enlisted members that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit on the Naval service are unduly familiar and also constitute fraternization.

In 1984 fraternization was added to the UCMJ as a chargeable offense. Later, the Services were charged by the JCS to develop their own fraternization guidelines that would expand on the UCMJ section on fraternization. According the the UCMJ, fraternization only applies to relationships between officers and enlisted, but the Services expanded on it and, like the Marine Corps, now encompases improper relationships between groups of ranks within the enlisted and officer ranks (i.e. E1 and an E4).

Where exactly does homosexual and heterosexual play into fraternization?! It doesn't!
Are you suggesting that homosexuals and heterosexuals be segregated and that a relationship between the two would result in an "inappropriate relationship" thus making the said relationship a chargeable offense under the UCMJ? As I have mentioned before, segregation would be counter-productive and would have more ramifications than DADT as it is today.

Maybe you shouldn't speak about military matters!

 

[Barb]

You really are something else! Your fellow liberals would be so proud of you!

Her "fellow liberals" are arguing with her furiously on at least two other threads. I'm afraid you'll have a hard time fitting Maddie into that box.

 

[Reidlr]

I have never served in the military. I am not altogether unfamiliar with the military 'culture' and protocol. I spent sixteen years working at a Consulting Engineering firm with contracts with both the Army and Navy. My career was working side by side with military professionals such as engineers, technicians, security forces, line active officers and enlisted personnel. I appreciate your service.

I know that the active service is basically, a young persons game. And we know that attitudes and prejudices change with every generation. Don't believe me? Check the want ads section in any big city newspaper between 1800 and 1959. You'll find ads openly excluding nationalities, creeds, races and genders. All immutable circumstances. And homosexuality is illegal in the service only here in America. Young people appreciate this. Americans appreciate this.

The military culture has always adapted to the American mores (however you choose to define it). There are willing, patriotic men and women who are ready to serve and act as responsibly as their heterosexual comrades in arms. Talented men and women who are, incidentally, serving their country as we speak. I honor their service as well.

There certainly is a pool of talent wasting due to an outdated culture and a fear-filled command structure.

My personal physician is gay. The man saved my life. Am I to shun and fear him because of his sexuality? He was born to be who he is. So, it breaks down to the individual, not a group. Just as you discipline rogue heterosexuals (It's TAIL HOOK on the phone for you! Will you take the call?), discipline run away gay service personnel.

Very nicely written. Couple of comments I'd like to make here:

I completly agree that over the decades prejudices in our country have changed like the wind. Most of those prejudices were for no go reason other than simply being a prejudice.

Being a homosexual is not illegal in the military. You can be a homosexual and serve, you just can not engage in homosexual acts while serving in the military. Just as heterosexual service members are not allowed to engage in certain sexual practices. Now, lets be honest here, these things occur and probably daily. Let me ask you this. Why are female and male service members placed in different barracks or tents? It is for obvious reasons. You can not have good order and discipline if your female and male service members are sharing a room and a head and utlimatly engaging in sexual acts or playing house in the barracks. This is the same reason that homosexual acts are prohibited in the military. Not all female and male roommates would have sex, but a majority of them would end up haveing some sort of a sexual relationship that would effect the day-to-day operations of the military. The same would occur once homosexuals are placed in the barracks. So what is the military to do once homosexuality is common practice in the military. Ensure that every room in the barracks has 1 homosexual and 1 heterosexual in order to prevent the same result that would occur from placing 1 female and 1 male in the same room. Everything in the military has a purpose. From a required clean shave everyday to an organized wall locker. A clean shave is required so that in the event you have to wear a gas mask you get a proper seal on your face and you don't die. An organized wall locker is required so that when you are given the order to deploy in 24hours your gear is readily available and organized. DADT serves its purpose in the military to provide the good order and discipline that is required every hour of every day.

Your comment regarding your personal physician shows that you are taking my arguments out of context. I have not attacked homosexuals nor have I stated that we should fear or hate homosexuals. I have nothing against people who choose to live that lifestyle. There will not be an negative effects in the doctor's office by having an open homosexual doctor. The only negative effects, would be those generated by people who do not like homosexuals. That will be everywhere and there is nothing you can do about that. I have a gay family member and I love him just as I do my non-gay (for a lack of a better term) family members.

You can not view DADT from a civilian gay/straight perspective. There are bigger issues when we discuss DADT and homosexuals in the military.

 

[Reidlr]

You really are something else! Your fellow liberals would be so proud of you!

Her "fellow liberals" are arguing with her furiously on at least two other threads. I'm afraid you'll have a hard time fitting Maddie into that box.

I had heard that she is a bit of a "wild child". I apoligize if I offended the liberal community by including her.

 

[Nosmo King]

I have never served in the military. I am not altogether unfamiliar with the military 'culture' and protocol. I spent sixteen years working at a Consulting Engineering firm with contracts with both the Army and Navy. My career was working side by side with military professionals such as engineers, technicians, security forces, line active officers and enlisted personnel. I appreciate your service.

I know that the active service is basically, a young persons game. And we know that attitudes and prejudices change with every generation. Don't believe me? Check the want ads section in any big city newspaper between 1800 and 1959. You'll find ads openly excluding nationalities, creeds, races and genders. All immutable circumstances. And homosexuality is illegal in the service only here in America. Young people appreciate this. Americans appreciate this.

The military culture has always adapted to the American mores (however you choose to define it). There are willing, patriotic men and women who are ready to serve and act as responsibly as their heterosexual comrades in arms. Talented men and women who are, incidentally, serving their country as we speak. I honor their service as well.

There certainly is a pool of talent wasting due to an outdated culture and a fear-filled command structure.

My personal physician is gay. The man saved my life. Am I to shun and fear him because of his sexuality? He was born to be who he is. So, it breaks down to the individual, not a group. Just as you discipline rogue heterosexuals (It's TAIL HOOK on the phone for you! Will you take the call?), discipline run away gay service personnel.

Very nicely written. Couple of comments I'd like to make here:

I completly agree that over the decades prejudices in our country have changed like the wind. Most of those prejudices were for no go reason other than simply being a prejudice.

Being a homosexual is not illegal in the military. You can be a homosexual and serve, you just can not engage in homosexual acts while serving in the military. Just as heterosexual service members are not allowed to engage in certain sexual practices. Now, lets be honest here, these things occur and probably daily. Let me ask you this. Why are female and male service members placed in different barracks or tents? It is for obvious reasons. You can not have good order and discipline if your female and male service members are sharing a room and a head and utlimatly engaging in sexual acts or playing house in the barracks. This is the same reason that homosexual acts are prohibited in the military. Not all female and male roommates would have sex, but a majority of them would end up haveing some sort of a sexual relationship that would effect the day-to-day operations of the military. The same would occur once homosexuals are placed in the barracks. So what is the military to do once homosexuality is common practice in the military. Ensure that every room in the barracks has 1 homosexual and 1 heterosexual in order to prevent the same result that would occur from placing 1 female and 1 male in the same room. Everything in the military has a purpose. From a required clean shave everyday to an organized wall locker. A clean shave is required so that in the event you have to wear a gas mask you get a proper seal on your face and you don't die. An organized wall locker is required so that when you are given the order to deploy in 24hours your gear is readily available and organized. DADT serves its purpose in the military to provide the good order and discipline that is required every hour of every day.

Your comment regarding your personal physician shows that you are taking my arguments out of context. I have not attacked homosexuals nor have I stated that we should fear or hate homosexuals. I have nothing against people who choose to live that lifestyle. There will not be an negative effects in the doctor's office by having an open homosexual doctor. The only negative effects, would be those generated by people who do not like homosexuals. That will be everywhere and there is nothing you can do about that. I have a gay family member and I love him just as I do my non-gay (for a lack of a better term) family members.

You can not view DADT from a civilian gay/straight perspective. There are bigger issues when we discuss DADT and homosexuals in the military.

We have homosexuals serving in the military today. Are there problems with individuals? Certainly. But as a group, I submit that the service of a homosexual soldier, sailor or Marine is just as valuable as the service of their heterosexual comrades in arms.

So, if we agree that homosexuality does not exclude a young man or woman from being fully qualified and capable of performing his or her assigned duties, it all comes down to billeting.

We have a platinum plated armed service here in America. No change order was ever too extravagant, despite my professional protests, to be denied. I watched a Navy chef carve an ice sculpture for a wedding at the NUWC Groton, Connecticut. I played 18 holes at the NAS Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico. I myself was 'billeted' at the Navy resort in Pinetamare, Italy right on the Mediterranean shore. I know from personal and professional experience that no task is insurmountable for the armed forces of the United States of America.

Bachelor enlisted quarters, bachelor officers quarters are set up in all branches of the service to accommodate both male and female service personnel. Is it too difficult to accommodate gay service personnel? It certainly wasn't too difficult to carve a porpoise out of a block of ice.

 

[Madeline]

People on USMB find me worth talking about, Reidlr? That totally shocks me.

Many thankies to Barb. I am nobody's sheeple; I decide issues on the facts and as guided by my own values.

Reidlr, just for fun, can you give me ONE example in which a solider's homosexuality would cause losses?

Three men are inna foxhole. The enemy surrounds them. They have little hope of reinforcements arriving soon. One is gay.

Do they break off running the machine gun to argue sexual politics?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Speaking as a 20 year veteran who has worked at several levels of the chain of command (was even a Department Head for 2 years), I can state that based on my experience, as well as based on the opinions of many people I've served with, it doesn't matter what you do off duty, as long as you're professional while in uniform.

Shit.......married heteros can't even hold hands in public.

It doesn't matter what your sexuality is, I'm more concerned with how you do your job, and because of the culture that the gays live in, they pay VERY close attention to detail.

Attention to detail is one of those traits highly valued in the military. It helps you notice stuff before it kills you.

Gays have done that for YEARS.

 

[The great dane]

Dont ask dont tell policy.
Yeah, freedom isnt the US strong side, claiming that freedom is the strong side is

 

[Flaylo]

I'm sorry, but no! If you have not served in the military and had to share a room with three other men or share a community shower room with 40 other men, you should have no say in DADT! An open homosexual will be ostracized and will only get seperated more than he/she is now. Not to mention in the barracks, most heterosexual men will not want to be assigned to the same room with a homosexual man; which only leads to billeting issues.

Maybe I can play devil's advocate, lets say, fine let the homosexuals serve openly. If a heterosexual male Marine has to share a room with a homosexual male Marine and be a piece of eye candy for a the gay Marine. Then why can't we start puting female Marines and male Marines in the same room. It's only fair! Or maybe we can have female and male Marines share the same community shower!

It won't work! Repeal of DADT will lead to billeting issues and will ultimatly lead to segregation of homosexual service members; which is counter-productive. Several military leaders have already stated that heterosexuals will not be required to room with homosexuals. This will require more money (your taxes) to pay for additional billeting to be built on military installations.

No we finally have someone in the military with some class and knows how the military works, not some fat over weight civilian larder who thinks they know whats better for the military. I can only hope that if the the morons vote to repeal it that it takes more than 5 years to do so, by that time I will have retired. The military would be losing a great soldier and will lose plenty of people if DADT is repealed.

 

[Flaylo]

Speaking as a 20 year veteran who has worked at several levels of the chain of command (was even a Department Head for 2 years), I can state that based on my experience, as well as based on the opinions of many people I've served with, it doesn't matter what you do off duty, as long as you're professional while in uniform.

Shit.......married heteros can't even hold hands in public.

It doesn't matter what your sexuality is, I'm more concerned with how you do your job, and because of the culture that the gays live in, they pay VERY close attention to detail.

Attention to detail is one of those traits highly valued in the military. It helps you notice stuff before it kills you.

Gays have done that for YEARS.

You don't speak for soldiers squid, we do our business different from squid, especially us who spend lots of time in the field, keep trricking yourselves into believing that servicemembers are all open to gays openly serving. Most servicemembers don't care if someone is gay, but only if they don't know if that person is gay.

 

[Flaylo]

Gay men and women already serve with no problems seen.

Having them not have to lie about who they are is just being honest on all sides.

If they were truly honest they would have never signed up to joined in the first damn place. If DADT is repealed before I retire I will not provide gay soldiers with any special treatment and protection and I will not let them use their homosexuality as a weapon to get special treatment. If I retire before the repeal the better.

 

[Reidlr]

Flaylo, I'm sorry to tell you, but your arguments fall on deaf ears in this thread! Debating DADT with these people is like arguing with a wall. It is pointless!

 

[Flaylo]

Flaylo, I'm sorry to tell you, but your arguments fall on deaf ears in this thread! Debating DADT with these people is like arguing with a wall. It is pointless!

The most arduent suporters of DADT are people who have never served a day in the military, they don't have the right to tell me whats best for me and my soldiers nor do they know whats best and what works for my soldiers. I bet gay servicemembers will start using their homosexuality as a weapon to get promotions and awards they don't deserve, they'll start blaming it on homophobia, thats why its best that they keep private and to themselves.